Fabulous, isn't it? You bash, persecute and abuse a minority group into misery and despair for hundreds of years, then you abuse them for not living as long as other people! What's the average lifespan of Aboriginal people, Alan? Do you think we should deny them some basic human rights until they get their act together and live as long as whites? Man up, you slackers! Hold on, though -- men as a group get sicker than women, and don't live as long. Maybe we should stop all men from getting married -- that will fix them!

Even assuming the research you reference is properly done and the results are accurate -- which I frankly find hard to believe -- so what? When did differential life expectancies become a reason to discriminate?

Posted by Jon J, Friday, 14 September 2012 8:13:19 AM

It seems to me that the gay community is really trying to shoot the messenger and is not at all interested in the message. I don't suppose that the incidence of HIV/AIDS in the male homosexual community would have any effect on their life expectancy, would it, eh!! It is about time some people out there got their heads out of the sand. If you want to engage in unprotected sex with multiple partners, then you have to accept the consequences and that also applies to the heterosexual community as well.

I might also say that if same sex couples want to get married then that is OK with me. Contrarily, if heterosexual couples wish to not get married then that is also OK.

David

Posted by VK3AUU, Friday, 14 September 2012 9:05:15 AM

In this article Canadian information is used to support the arguments. In the Canadian item to which a link was provided I found the following;

"In 2001, a literature review sponsored by the Gay and Lesbian Health Services in Saskatoon estimated the economic cost of homophobia in Canada to be as high as $8 billion a year. A 2003 literature review estimated that as many 5,481 GLB Canadians die prematurely each year as a direct result of homophobia."

Doesn't that suggest that the homophobes, who include the various church leaders prominent in this issue, have played a substantial role in causing a large number of early deaths world wide.

Posted by Foyle, Friday, 14 September 2012 10:20:00 AM

The truth is complicated by the suicide rate of young men between 15 and 24, the highest demographic of all. As Jon said, you bash and persecute a minority for millennia; and then wonder why the emerging gay community, confused by their physical responses, are driven to despair; by the life of endless homophobia and misery, that awaits them! Made even worse by incorrigible homophobes, who arguably number amongst the most ignorant people on the planet; and or, simply psychos getting their jollies hurting others? If one understood just how much pain and suffering is visited on the gay community, by former family and friends even, one would know that this is never ever a matter of choice, any more than haemophilia is a matter of choice! And while we are on the subject of life expectancy? Did you know that just prior to 1986, there were 142 registered haemophiliacs in Australia? And that all of them have since died of medically acquired aids. Even so, Christian fundamentalists merely masquerading as genuinely empathetic health professionals, see it as their holy duty to deny all aids suffers quality health care? Given a view that as inherently evil persons, made ill by self inflicted means or unsafe sex, first class medicine, or clinical aids treatment, can be ethically denied? It is quite difficult to acquire aids. Even the spouses of the aforementioned medically infected haemophiliacs, remained largely unaffected in the early years of the disease, with only around 14% recorded spousal infections; even where unsafe sex was standard practise between married couples, possibly hoping in their blissful ignorance, to create a family? Why blissfully ignorant? Well, so-called health professionals withheld/withhold critical information, for reasons of "patient privacy" issues? Perhaps we could seriously extend the life expectancies of homosexuals, by simply giving them critical, timely, quality information, about their real health outcomes, combined with quality medicine. Apparently, there are around a million "known" aids suffers in the USA alone? That each one of these suffers, spends on average, thirty thousand PA, on medicine? And, $30,000,000,000.00 reasons to avoid a cure? Rhrosty.

Posted by Rhrosty, Friday, 14 September 2012 10:55:25 AM

As memory serves, Canadian researchers recorded the first serious mutations of HIV/aids? Meaning, that a disease formerly treatable by a known spectrum of anti virals, became untreatable; and like galloping consumption, very rapidly overwhelmed and killed the victims! Because of this disease's ability to constantly mutate and produce far more virulent varieties, we now have no choice, but to focus on a cure! It seems there may be some promise of a cure, in a combination of leukaemia chemotherapy, and an equally well known arthritis medication. Given both of these drugs are in relatively common use already, there is no requirement for FDA or similar board approvals, for their clinical use? Apparently the leukaemia treatment destroys the aids virus in all its current mutations; and in all its often hidden locations, but only in doses, usually lethal for the patient? Reportedly, the addition of the Arthritis medication seems to make the chemotherapeutic far more efficacious? [By seemingly obliging the virus to emerge back into the blood stream, where it can be successfully attacked?] Allowing far less toxic chemo doses to be administered, with apparent success and significant survival rates, particularly where applied, when general health is still relatively robust? A comparatively good outcome; given, the acquisition of the disease, is a virtual death sentence! Albeit, deferred downstream, for a double decade and beyond, by antivirals? Rhrosty.

Posted by Rhrosty, Friday, 14 September 2012 11:38:35 AM

A smoker is a drug addict. He or she merely has to decide to give up the drug and become a non-smoker. A gay person isn't a drug addict. They are gay because that is the way they are.

When somebody compares smoking to being gay they are implying that the gay person has the same choice as a smoker. Gays don't have that choice. That is why it is homophobic to compare smoking to being gay.